TODAY’S DISCUSSION Overview of Course Redesign LCE Course Redesign Initiative Institutional and Course Readiness Planning for Redesign Assessment Approaches Cost Reduction Strategies

Established in 1999 as a university Center at RPI funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts

Became an independent non-profit organization in 2003

Mission: help colleges and universities learn how to use technology to improve student learning outcomes and reduce their instructional costs

Program in Course Redesign (PCR)– 30 institutions

Roadmap to Redesign (R2R)– 20 institutions

Colleagues Committed to Redesign (C2R)– 60 institutions

State and System-based Programs– 50+ institutions

PROGRAM IN COURSE REDESIGN

Challenge colleges and universities to redesign their approaches to instruction using technology to achieve quality enhancements as well as cost savings.

50,000 students

30 projects

ASSUMPTIONS THAT GET IN THE WAY

Improving quality means increasing cost

Adding IT increases cost Using IT may even threaten

quality

TRADITIONAL INSTRUCTION

SeminarsLectures

“BOLT-ON” INSTRUCTION

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE LECTURE?

Treats all students as if they are the same

Ineffective in engaging students

Inadequate individual assistance

Poor attendance and success rates

Students fail to retain learning

WHAT’S WRONG WITH MULTIPLE SECTIONS?

In theory: greater interaction In practice: large class size In practice: dominated by the

same presentation techniques Lack of coordination Inconsistent outcomes

THE ONE PERCENT SOLUTION Maricopa Community College

District 200,000 students 2,000 course titles 25 courses =

44% enrollment

All CCs = 51%

All four-year = 35%

QUANTITATIVE (13)

Mathematics– Iowa State University– Northern Arizona

University– Rio Salado College– Riverside CC– University of

Alabama– University of Idaho– Virginia Tech

Statistics– Carnegie Mellon

University– Ohio State University– Penn State– U of Illinois-Urbana

Champaign Computer

Programming– Drexel University– University at Buffalo

SCIENCE (5) SOCIAL SCIENCE (6)

Biology– Fairfield University– University of

Massachusetts Chemistry

– University of Iowa– U of Wisconsin-

Madison Astronomy

– U of Colorado-Boulder

Psychology– Cal Poly Pomona– University of Dayton– University of New

Mexico– U of Southern Maine

Sociology– IUPUI

American Government– U of Central Florida

HUMANITIES (6)

English Composition– Brigham Young University– Tallahassee CC

Spanish– Portland State University– University of Tennessee

Fine Arts– Florida Gulf Coast University

World Literature– University of Southern

Mississippi

IMPROVED LEARNING OUTCOMES Penn State - 68% on a content-knowledge test vs. 60% UB - 56% earned A- or higher vs. 37% CMU - scores on skill/concept tests increased by 22.8% Fairfield – 88% on concept retention vs. 79% U of Idaho – 30% earned A’s vs. 20% UMass – 73% on tougher exams vs. 61% FGCU - 85% on exams vs. 72%; 75% A’s and B’s vs. 31% USM - scored a full point higher on writing assessments IUPUI, RCC, UCF, U of S Maine, Drexel and U of Ala -

significant improvements in understanding content

25 of 30 have shown improvement; 5 have shown equal learning.

REDUCTION IN DFW RATES

U of Alabama – 60% to 40% Drexel – 51% to 38% Tallahassee CC – 46% to 25% Rio CC – 41% to 32% IUPUI – 39% to 25% UNM – 39% to 23% U of S Maine – 28% to 19% U of Iowa – 25% to 13% Penn State – 12% to 9.8%

24 measured; 18 showed improvement.

COST SAVINGS RESULTS

Redesigned courses reduce costs by 37% on average, with a range of 15% to 77%.

Collectively, the 30 courses saved about $3 million annually.

WHAT HAPPENS TO THE SAVINGS?

Stay in department for continuous course improvement and/or redesign of others

Provide a greater range of offerings at upper division or graduate level

Accommodate greater numbers of students with same resources

Stay in department to reduce teaching load and provide more time for research

Redesign similar courses Miscellaneous

– Offer distance sections – Reduce rental expenditures– Improve training of part-time faculty

REDESIGN CHARACTERISTICS Redesign the whole course—not just

a single class Emphasize active learning—greater

student engagement with the material and with one another

Rely heavily on readily available interactive software—used independently and in teams

Mastery learning—not self-paced Increase on-demand, individualized

assistance Automate only those course

components that can benefit from automation—e.g., homework, quizzes, exams

Replace single mode instruction with differentiated personnel strategies

Technology enables good pedagogy with large #s of students.

GENERAL BIOLOGY at Fairfield University

Inconsistent student academic preparation Inadequate student interaction with learning

materials and complex topics Inadequate use of modern technology Inability of students to retain what they have

learned (amnesia) Inability of students to apply biological

principles to other disciplines (inertia)

Memorization vs. Application of Scientific Concepts

ACADEMIC GOALS

Enhance quality by individualizing instruction Focus on higher-level cognitive skills Create both team-based and independent

investigations Use interactive learning environments in

lectures and labs – to illustrate difficult concepts– to allow students to practice certain skills or test certain

hypotheses– to work with other students to enhance the learning and

discussion of complex topics

Traditional 7 sections (~35) 7 faculty 100% wet labs $131,610 $506 cost-per-student

Redesign 2 sections (~140) 4 faculty 50% wet, 50% virtual $98,033 $350 cost-per-student

Content mastery: significantly better performanceContent retention: significantly better (88% vs. 79%)Course drops declined from 8% to 3%Next course enrollment increased from 75% to 85%Declared majors increased by 4%

FIVE REDESIGN MODELS Supplemental – Add

to the current structure and/or change the content

Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities conducted in labs or virtually

FIRST-YEAR SPANISH (Replacement Model)

Increase active speaking via in-class interaction

Use technology to support skill practice

Provide immediate feedback online

Increase student and instructor computer literacy

Encourage collaborative learning, both online and in class

Traditional 57 sections (~27) Adjuncts + 6 TAs 100% in class $167,074 ($2931/section) 1529 students @ $109

Redesign 38 sections (~54) Instructor-TA pairs 50% in class, 50% online $56,838 ($1496/section) 2052 students @ $28

Oral skills: significantly better performanceLanguage proficiency & language achievement: no significant difference

A second Spanish project: final exam scores in speaking, reading and listening were higher

FIVE REDESIGN MODELS Supplemental – Add

to the current structure and/or change the content

Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities

Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting

THE MATH EMPORIUMat Virginia Tech

Traditional 38 sections (~40) 10 tenured faculty,

13 instructors, 15 GTAs

2 hours per week $91 cost-per-student

Redesign 1 section (~1520) 1 instructor, grad &

undergrad TAs + 2 tech support staff

24*7 in open lab $21 cost-per-student

Replicated at U of Alabama, U of Idaho, LSU, Wayne State, U Missouri-St. Louis, Seton Hall

THE EMPORIUM MODEL77% Cost Reduction (V1)30% Cost Reduction (V2)

UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMASUCCESS RATES

Fall 1998 Fall 1999

Fall 2000 Fall 2001 Fall 2002 Fall 2003 Fall 2004

47.1% 40.6%

50.2% 60.5% 63.0% 78.9% 76.2%

FIVE REDESIGN MODELS Supplemental – Add to

the current structure and/or change the content

Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities

Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting

Fully online – Conduct all (most) learning activities online

FULLY ONLINE MODEL

Traditional Redesign one class Emphasize instructor-to-

student interaction Instructor does all

grading and provides all student feedback

Use a single personnel strategy

Redesign Redesign whole course Emphasize student-to-

student interaction and teaming

Automate grading and student feedback

Use a differentiated personnel strategy

U. OF S. MISSISSIPPIWorld Literature

Traditional 16 – 20 sections (~65) Taught by 8 faculty

and 8 adjuncts Faculty do all grading $70 cost-per-student

Redesign Single online section Team-taught by 4

faculty and 4 TAs 50% automated grading

via WebCT; 50% TAs $31 cost-per-student

Redesign triples course capacity.

FIVE REDESIGN MODELS Supplemental – Add to the

current structure and/or change the content

Replacement – Blend face-to-face with online activities

Emporium – Move all classes to a lab setting

Fully online – Conduct all (most) learning activities online

Buffet – Mix and match according to student preferences

THE BUFFET MODEL Assess each student’s knowledge/skill level and

preferred learning style Provide an array of high-quality, interactive

learning materials and activities Develop individualized study plans

Build in continuous assessment to provide practice and feedback

Offer appropriate, varied human interaction when needed

WHAT DO THE FACULTY SAY?

“It’s the best experience I’ve ever had in a classroom.”

“The quality of my worklife has changed immeasurably for the better.”

“It’s a lot of work during the transition--but it’s worth it.”

FACULTY BENEFITS Increased opportunity to work directly with

students who need help Reduced time spent on grading Technology does the tracking and monitoring More practice and interaction for students

without faculty effort Ability to try different approaches to meet

different student needs Opportunity for continuous improvement of

materials and approaches

A STREAMLINED REDESIGN METHODOLOGY

“A Menu of Redesign Options” Readiness Criteria Five Principles of Successful

Course Redesign Five Models for Course

Redesign Five Models for Assessing

Student Learning Cost Reduction Strategies Course Planning Tool Course Structure Form Five Critical Implementation

Issues Planning Checklist

FOR MORE INFORMATIONwww.theNCAT.org

http://www.theNCAT.org/States/ABOR.htm